the interests of each individual are equally important, and its aim is to make society function as smoothly as possible. Thus, a prerequisite for this contract is that everyone joins it and undertakes to follow the same rules. (Rachels, 2003.) The logic in an organization is similar.
According to Rawls’ (1999) “theory of justice”, a type of social contract theory, no citizen in a society should be violated in terms of justice and his or her liberty should never be restricted for the benefits of other citizens.
Social identity is also an important theme, when trying to understand career (Millward & Kyriakidou, 2003). If previous career investments in an organization are abused or betrayed, the employee may not be as willing to invest in the new organization (Herriot, 2001). It has been found that maintaining identity from pre- to post-merger is critical for personnel to adjust successfully (van Knippenberg et al, 2002).
Millward and Kyriakidou (2003) argue that the key to bridging pre-merger and post-pre-merger identities is located in the concept of career.
Career is closely connected to identity, as it helps the employee define her- or himself in the context of the workplace. However, career is not only about identity or definition of self, but it also aims at expressing and protecting this self to provide continuity, coherence, and esteem. It is when thwarting this self-protective function that resistances can arise.
(Breakwell, according to Millward & Kyriakidou, 2003.)
In this section, the three levels of resistance in M&A theory have been discussed. We now turn to Change Management and Labour Process Theory, to see how resistance is understood in these theoretical fields.
3.2.1 Change Management Theory, on resistance to change
In change management theory, resistance to change in organizations has been discussed for decades. This concept is increasingly being questioned by scholars (e.g. Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Piderit, 2000;
Symon, 2005).
People do not resist change, per se. People may resist loss of status, loss of pay, or loss of comfort, but these are not the same as resisting change.
Dent and Goldberg (1999:26) write. They point out that research then ought to focus on finding strategies to deal with, for example, loss of status, rather than simply labelling personnel’s objections to this loss of status as resistance.
Dent and Goldberg (1999) trace the concept of resistance to change back to Lewin, in the 1940s, and argue that since then it has undergone a transformation in terms of how it is interpreted. It has changed from a systemic concept to a psychological concept, where attitudes and emotions of the individual employee are at the centre. Lewin borrowed the term resistance from the physical sciences, and meant it to signify different forces in the organization (understood as a system), arguing that these forces automatically strived towards an equilibrium.
Today, resistance to change has changed into a concept in which personnel resist management change initiatives (Dent & Goldberg, 1999a). This means that organizations are assumed to lack an inherent capacity for change. This runs in contrast to findings by Goldstein (1994, according to Dent and Goldberg, 1999b), saying that it is increasingly recognized that organizations have the ability to spontaneously self-organize, when a change a necessary. (Dent &
Goldberg, 1999b.)
There are several consequences of the transformation as regards the mental model surrounding the resistance to change. One is that it has led to an approach where blame is central. Another result of this
“mental model” is that management and personnel confront each other in a way that Lewin never intended. The rise of unions in the USA in
1950s, may explain why this dichotomy developed in theory on resistance to change. (Dent and Goldberg, 1999.)
Piderit (2000) builds partly on the article by Dent and Goldberg (1999), in her critique against how resistance to change is understood.
Like many others, she focuses primarily on attitudes with the individual, causing him or her to be resistant to change, rather than on factors in the environment or situation. She suggests “a multidimensional view of responses to change”, based on the classic tripartite view of attitudes: the emotional dimension, the cognitive dimension, and the intentional dimension (Ajzen, 1984, according to Piderit, 2000). Only the last category allows space for planned action on the part of the employee. “Distinguishing between intention and behaviour will allow more careful study of the connections between the two concepts.”, she argues (p.787). This quote illustrates the dividing line regarding to the interpretation of the nature of resistance. As behaviour, resistance can be understood as unconscious, spontaneous.
As intention, resistance is understood as conscious, and planned. The issue of rationality can be added.
Hirschman (1970) argues that exit and voice are the two main options for people, when they are not satisfied with a situation. After invoking an analysis where arguments from political science and from economics are put against each other, he argues that openly expressing opinions and objections (voice) is more loyal than leaving the organization (exit).
This is mainly because it gives management the opportunity to correct whatever circumstances personnel may find wrong - if management chooses to listen to the criticism.
Based on Hirschman’s (1970) conclusions, personnel reactions - when expressed in voice, rather than exit – can be understood as a fundamentally positive phenomenon and an expression of loyalty. This is also one of the points that Piderit (2000) makes. “Researchers have largely overlooked the potentially positive intentions that may motivate negative responses to change.”, she writes. Armenakis and Harris (2002) and Atkinson (2005) hold a similar view, claiming that it is better to embrace resistance then to condemn it as it contains information that might facilitate the merger process. “Recognise resistance and welcome it as a healthy response.” Atkinson (2005:15) writes, while emphasizing the importance of treating personnel with
respect. Watson (1982) argues that resistance should be understood rather as reluctance. Many researchers today argue that it is time to leave the concept of resistance to change (Dent & Goldberg, 1999;
Krantz, 1999; Merron, 1993).
Resistance appears as a wide concept when scanning different fields of theory. It covers themes such as conflict management, stereotypes, identity. Before presenting a framework for understanding resistance, the discussion on resistance in two related fields will be briefly introduced. The first field is Change Management, and the second field is Labour Process Theory. Needless to say, theory from other fields could also have been introduced here. Conflict management theory and critical theory are two examples. Resistance-related discussions are also held, for example, in sociology and political science. In sociology, Tucker (1993) very concretely suggests the following list of types of expressions of personnel resistance: gossip, confrontation, resignation, toleration, theft, sabotage, non-cooperation (not performing required tasks), collective action, formal complaints, law, violence. It is rare to find lists of categories of resistance this way. Tucker (1993) argues that the first-mentioned four types are the most common ones. As I have explained, I claim that resistance is articulated differently in a context of skilled public professionals. Rather than sabotage, they articulate their opinions and seek a dialogue.
Let us now look at what Labour Process Theory12 says about resistance.
3.2.2 Labour Process Theory, on power and resistance Labour process theory, is strongly influenced by Braverman (1974), but also goes back to Marx. Today, class struggles and revolution is not in focus, but as Thompson (1990, according to Jermier et al, 1994) argues, there is still a radical intent underlying labour process theory.
Braverman and Marx, however, take on a macro perspective, and do not discuss issues of subjectivity and resistance. Theory on this was
12This section is based primarily on the book Resistance and power in organizations, by Jermier, Knights, and Nord (eds) (1994). It gathers some of the most important thinkers in labour process theory, to discuss the theme of resistance. It also summarizes the history of this theoretical field.
developed in the 1980s and 1990s instead, and it “is now widely recognized that resistance is intertwined with subjectivity”, Jermer et al (1994:6) write. They argue that this also makes theories on social identity central. In labour process theory, resistance is normally understood “as a reactive process where agents embedded in power relations actively oppose initiatives by other agents.” (Jermier et al, 1994:9). Since the 1970s, debate on resistance in labour process theory has been limited and underdeveloped, and there is still no consensus as to the meaning or significance of resistance (Knights & Vurdubakis, 1994). This debate has also been very limited in social organization theory in general (Jermier et al, 1994).
Jermier et al (1994) argue that resistance should not be understood as a pathological condition, but rather as “the product of rationally coherent strategies and objectives”. They advocate a more local perspective to labour process theory than that which has traditionally dominated the field of theory, and write (Jermier et al, 1994:21):
No grand collective consciousness or shared interests or special proclivity for self-sacrifice need be posited. This view implies a somewhat particular methodological stance. Inquiry demands examination of the concrete local situation in which individuals find themselves. The expressions of resistance and the social actors at whom they are directed will vary widely over space and time.
Critical studies must include understanding how actors view the experience of domination and what meaning they ascribe to resistance, Jermier et al (1994) argue.
In social psychology, conflict in group dynamics has traditionally been regarded as dysfunctional. This categorization has been understood as a pathological phenomenon, an assumption that is currently a subject of debate. Brown and Gaertner (2001) is one of those who argue that this conflict and categorization are normal and sound in social life. In this issue, it seems as if social psychology and labour process theory are approaching a similar standpoint. However, in social psychology it is still common to discuss resistance in terms of job satisfaction, and to apply quantitative methods. A study by Covin et al (1996), is one example. Referring to Braverman, Jermier et al (1994:4) explain that what he opposed was
managerialist social research that reduced the subjectivity of workers to statements of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction, or that took at face value questionnaire reports of class identifications.
Other central themes, closely related to resistance in labour process theory, are control and supervision (e.g. Weiss, 2005, who talks about overcoming resistance to supervision, in a study based on Foucault).
Resistance is often understood as a reaction to control and lack of power in the individual work situation. But why is resistance then such a common phenomenon in M&A, especially in a context of highly educated professionals? In career theory, it is argued that in these environments, the ideal team member needs to be able to work without direct supervision, Brousseau et al (1996) talk of the decline of hierarchy. Without the need for this supervision and control, why does resistance still occur?